1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, listed in [Attachment List No. 1], and Defendant C, listed in Attached Table No. 2.

1. A co-owner who owns shares in judgment as to the cause of the claim or a person who obtains consent from the co-owner cannot exclusively possess, use, and benefit from, the article jointly owned without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if his/her shares fall short of the majority, the other co-owners may demand delivery or evacuation of the article jointly owned as an act of preservation for the article jointly owned even if their shares fall short of the majority;

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da12317 Decided August 21, 1998). The Plaintiff is the owner who acquired 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet on September 6, 2013, and the Defendants possessed each real estate listed in the separate sheet on September 6, 2013. Since there is no dispute between the parties, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff seeking delivery as an act of preserving the jointly owned property.

2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants, in collusion with G, acquired shares in the I apartment as stated in the separate sheet, the only property of G, with knowledge of the fact that H had a claim arising from sharing the I apartment as stated in the separate sheet, and H won won a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case should be dismissed since the Plaintiff’s ownership would be lost. However, the Defendants’ assertion is merely a assumptive one, and is therefore without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.